- Innovative Technology
- Open Access
Thermablate EAS: a new endometrial ablation system
© Springer-Verlag Berlin / Heidelberg 2004
Published: 3 March 2004
To report on Thermablate EAS, the newest endometrial thermal balloon ablation system now available.
Thermablate EAS consists of a light-weight reusable hand-held treatment control unit (TCU) with a single use disposable catheter–balloon–cartridge system. Treatment time is <2.5 min. A 6.0-mm diameter catheter allows it to be used in an office or outpatient setting utilizing minimal anesthesia/analgesia.
Six-month follow-up data obtained under a Special Access Program for Health Canada in a series of 54 patients showed amenorrhea 20%, spotting 20%, hypomenorrhea 37%, eumenorrhea 16%, and persisting menorrhagia 6%.
Thermablate EAS is the smallest, most portable, and simplest endometrial ablation presently available. High rates of clinical success and patient satisfaction combined with enthusiastic acceptance by clinicians of this compact device makes it a very attractive endometrial ablation system.
Menorrhagia affects about 20% of all pre-menopausal women and is the leading cause of iron-deficiency anemia . Failure of this problem to respond to conventional medical therapy has often led to hysterectomy with many structurally normal uteri being removed for dysfunctional uterine bleeding .
In the 1980s hysteroscopic endometrial ablation was introduced as a minimally invasive alternative to hysterectomy. In the past decade, a second generation of endometrial ablation systems evolved utilizing different energy sources such as hot liquid systems, microwave, electrosurgical, radiofrequency, laser, or cryotherapy . Balloon systems include ThermaChoice (Ethicon, Somerville, N.J.), Cavaterm (Walsten Medical, Morges, Switzerland), and MenoTreat (Atos Medical AB, Hörby, Sweden). On 21 May 2003 Thermablate EAS (MDMI Technologies, Richmond, BC, Canada) was approved for sale in Canada with prior approval by the State Drug Administration in China. Approval for sale in Europe with Conformity European (CE) marking is imminent.
When the heat up phase is completed a “Ready for Treatment” prompt is clearly displayed on the LCD along with a green light and an audible beep, indicating that the treatment can be initiated. Following insertion of the pre-lubricated balloon into the endometrial cavity, the treatment trigger is depressed for 5 s ending with an audible beep indicating that the system has been activated and the treatment cycle initiated. A 15-s balloon leak check is automatically carried out following which the hot liquid is pumped through the catheter into the balloon.
During treatment the TCU performs a series of pressurization and depressurization cycles to homogenize the temperature of the liquid in the balloon ensuring uniformity of energy and treatment at the balloon surface. Automatic adjustment of the pressure to 180 mm Hg is done every 10 s with the total treatment time being 128 s (2 min 8 s). Tissue necrosis to a uniform depth of 4–5 mm into the myometrium has been demonstrated in pre-hysterectomy studies. Balloon design provides lesser penetration of approximately 2 mm depth in both the cornual and internal cervical os areas. At the conclusion of treatment, the liquid is automatically withdrawn from the balloon into the canister which is then removed from the endometrial cavity and disposed. The higher temperature employed in the Thermablate EAS results in significantly shorter treatment time than is required with other existing balloon technologies.
Clinical trials evaluation
Study in Bombay, India
A phase-II pilot study was carried out in Bombay, India, and has previously been reported. Sixteen women ranging in age from 34–48 years (mean age 41 years) were treated. At 6 months, follow-up showed 8 of 16 women reported amenorrhea (50%), 6 of 16 (38%) had hypomenorrhea or spotting, 1 had normal periods, and 1 failed treatment; the latter had cystic endometrial hyperplasia which was documented on endometrial biopsy 2 weeks before therapy and was confirmed by hysteroscopy at the time of therapy. These results have remained unchanged at 1 and 2 years (pers. commun.).
These women had also experienced dysmenorrhea; mild=8, moderate=2, and severe=6. Following Thermablate treatment only one woman reported persistent mild dysmenorrhea. The overall satisfaction rate was 94% (15 of 16 women) with 11 women being very satisfied and 5 women satisfied .
Prior to Canadian approval to market the Thermablate system in May 2003, a series of patients were treated under the Special Access Program of the Device Evaluation Division of the Therapeutic Products Directorate for Health Canada. From 26 September 2002 through 28 April 2003, 54 patients were approved for use of the device. Treatment was carried out by ten gynecologists in six university-affiliated and community hospitals.
Patient profiles were similar to those of other ablation studies. The mean age was 41.5 years (range 33–54 years). Four patients were nulliparous and two had four children, with seven not recorded. The remainder each had one to three children. Two patients each had one, two, and three cesarean deliveries, respectively, for a total of 12 cesarean births in the 6 patients.
No pretreatment using GnRH analogs, other medications, or timing in the cycle was carried out. Various medical conditions included morbid obesity (BMI>40 kg/m2), sleep apnea, previous history of arterial and venous thrombosis, hypertension with paroxysmal atrial tachycardia, and unsuitability or refusal for general anesthesia or other ablation techniques.
Anesthesia included the following:
General anesthesia 21 of 54
Intravenous sedation (IVS) 14 of 54
Paracervical block (PCB) 17 of 54
IVS and PCB 2 of 54
Patients were discharged within 4–6 h after ablation and required minimal postoperative analgesia. No readmissions to hospital occurred.
Follow-up results in 49 patients at 6 months (5 patients lost to follow-up) were as follows:
10 of 49
10 of 49
18 of 49
8 of 49
3 of 49
These preliminary results were presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the American Association of Gynecological Laparoscopists .
Hysteroscopic ablation has resulted in high success rates of 75–100% (mean 85%) [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. These methods are skill dependent, require intensive training and expertise, and are not free of complications such as perforation, hemorrhage, visceral injury, and excessive fluid overload absorption.
Thermal balloon ablation requires minimal training and is easy to perform. Low rates (2–4%) of minor problems, such as post-operative infection or hematometra formation, were initially reported [12, 13]. Recently, more serious complications, such as bowel and other thermal injuries, have also been reported in second-generation endometrial ablation systems .
Correct patient selection has been stressed to ensure good results . A large uterus, active pelvic infection, evidence of malignant or pre-malignant changes, and the desire to maintain fertility are absolute contraindications. The presence of myomas, especially submucous and intramural >3 cm, or the suspicion of adenomyosis, are likely to reduce success . Rates of success with thermal balloon ablation have paralled other ablation techniques with 80–90% patient satisfaction expected [17, 18]. Long-term follow-up studies on balloon ablation continue to show highly satisfactory outcomes [19, 20].
Thermablate EAS is the smallest, most portable, and simplest endometrial ablation presently available. A short treatment time of <2.5 min and small (6-mm) diameter catheter allows it to be used in an office or outpatient setting using minimal anesthesia.
The Thermablate EAS is safe and effective in treating menorrhagia especially when other therapies are contraindicated or difficult to perform.
High rates of amenorrhea, spotting, hypomenorrhea, and patient satisfaction have been achieved, and enthusiastic acceptance by clinicians of this compact device makes it a very attractive endometrial ablation system.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the participation of the following gynecologists in the Canadian trials: S. Tregoning, B.K. Pirani (MSA Hospital, Abbotsford, BC); Y. Kalyanpur, H. Mackoff, H. Robson (Richmond Hospital, Richmond, BC); S. Kaye, E. Hoyer (Lions Gate Hospital, Vancouver, BC); A. Ternamian, N. Leyland (St. Joseph’s Health Centre, Toronto, Ontario)
- Snowden R, Christian B (1983) Patterns and perceptions of menstruation: a World Health Organization International Study. London, Croon HelmGoogle Scholar
- Garry R (1995) Endometrial laser ablation. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynecol 9:319–328Google Scholar
- Vilos GA (2000) Global endometrial ablation. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 22:668–675Google Scholar
- Mangeshikar PS, Kapur A, Yackel DB (2003) Endometrial ablation with a new thermal balloon system. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 10:27–32Google Scholar
- Vilos GA (2003) Endometrial ablation with a new balloon system (Thermablate EAS) to treat menorrhagia in high-risk surgical candidates. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 10:536Google Scholar
- deWit A (1993) Hysteroscopy: an evolving case of minimally invasive therapy in gynecology. Health Policy 23:113–124Google Scholar
- Baggish MS, Sze EH (1996) Endometrial ablation: a series of 568 patients treated over an 11-year period. Am J Obstet Gynecol 174:908–913Google Scholar
- Garry R (1995) Endometrial laser ablation. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynecol 9:319–328Google Scholar
- Erian J (1994) Endometrial ablation in the treatment of menorrhagia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 101 (Suppl 11):19–22Google Scholar
- Vilos GA, Vilos EC, King JH (1996) Experience with 800 hysteroscopic endometrial ablations. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 4:33–38Google Scholar
- O’Connor H, Magos A (1996) Endometrial resection for the treatment of menorrhagia. N Engl J Med 335:151–156Google Scholar
- Meyer WR, Walsh BW, Grainger DA et al. (1998) Thermal balloon and rollerball ablation to treat menorrhagia: a multicenter comparison. Obstet Gynecol 92:98–103Google Scholar
- Vilos GA, Fortin CA, Sanders B et al. (1997) Clinical trial of the uterine balloon for treatment of menorrhagia. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 4:559–565Google Scholar
- Gurtcheff SE, Sharp HT (2003) Complications associated with global endometrial ablation: the utility of the MAUDE Database. Obstet Gynecol 102:1278–1282Google Scholar
- Garry R (1995) Good practice with endometrial ablation. Obstet Gynecol 86:144–151Google Scholar
- Yackel DB (1999) Menorrhagia treated by thermal balloon endometrial ablation. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 21:1076–1080Google Scholar
- O’Connor H, Magos AL (1996) Long-term results of endometrial resection. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 3:S535Google Scholar
- Roy KH, Mattox JH (2002) Advances in endometrial ablation. CME Review Article. Obstet Gynecol Surv 57:789–802Google Scholar
- Amso NN, Fernandez H, Vilos GA, Fortin C, McFaul P, Schaeffer M et al. (2003) Uterine endometrial thermal balloon therapy for the treatment of menorrhagia: long-term multicentre follow-up study. Hum Reprod 18:1082–1087Google Scholar
- Loffer FD, Grainger D (2002) Five-year follow-up of patients participating in a randomized trial of uterine balloon therapy versus rollerball ablation for treatment of menorrhagia. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 9:429–435Google Scholar